After returning to the Church from a Protestant sect, I can honestly say that the preaching is better than I remembered. Unlike, David, I have a horror story or two, but for the most part the homilies have been at least descent. It would be hard to be 'on,' week in and week out, but I do agree that priests could do a better job in this area. I am looking forward to the next article.

It has been said that heaven is catholic liturgy and Baptist preaching; hell is the other way around. I agree with you that the Baptist is in general a more charismatic speaker and a better exegete, but a good sermon that you can really sink your teeth into is rare. For one thing, I think few preachers have given any real thought to what they are trying to accomplish in the pulpit. Try this (if you don't care to win friends and influence clergy): next time you hear a sermon, go up to the preacher afterwards and ask him what his philosophy of preaching is. What is the objective? Very few preachers have any idea what they are doing in the pulpit, which means that what they are really doing is simply filling fifteen (or fifty) minutes.

I have often said that a good sermon poorly delivered is a poor sermon. You are right that seminaries do little to prepare students to preach and tend to fall to one side (sermon crafting or delivery) or another. I'm looking forward to your fifteen suggestions (though perhaps with fear and trembling).

Mr. Mills is fortunate indeed if he can say that he has never heard a genuinely bad Catholic homily. During my four years as a Catholic, I have heard many bad homilies--not just mediocre, not just poor, but truly dreadful. I do not know if they are any more dreadful than typical Protestant homilies--I spent my 25 years as an Episcopal priest preaching sermons, not listening to them--but I must say, with great sadness, that the average Catholic priest preaches badly.

Part of the problem is simply technique. The Catholic preacher often thinks he has to comment on all the lessons--so-called liturgical preaching. But more often than not, what one gets is a minimum of three disconnected homilies wrapped up as one. This problem is easily solved. Ever preacher should be able to state the theme of his homily in one sentence. If he can't, then he has not prepared properly. Every word the preacher utters must serve this theme. No extraneous stories or funny anecdotes. No departures into other topics that might be of interest to the preacher. He must stick to his topic, ruthlessly and tenaciously. Homilies that bounce all over the place do not (as a general rule--there are always exceptions) change people's lives; they aren't even remembered thirty minutes later.

But perhaps the critical problem of the Catholic preacher is his innate moralism. Instead of proclaiming "good news" that elevates and transformers his hearers, he ends up telling us, again and again and again, that we must strive to be good people. Sometimes he has some good advice on how we can be good people; sometimes he doesn't. But invariably, Sunday after Sunday, the Catholic preacher descends into a dreary moralism.

The solution for this problem is difficult to articulate. Somehow the Catholic priest must begin to understand the homily as akin to giving the Eucharist. It's not just a matter of saying things ABOUT God or Jesus or morality or whatever. Preaching is communication of Jesus Christ himself. It is a word, the Word, that enables us to live our lives in faith and hope. The preacher must not just speak about the gospel: he must do the gospel to his hearers. "The preaching of the Word of God," Martin Luther said, "is the Word of God." This is what the Catholic preacher must begin to understand and practice.

David,

Very good. The improved state of homiletics in the Catholic Church is one of the success stories of Vatican II. Prior to that time, sermons were rare (there was little time or space for one in a Tridentine Mass, and when the priest did deliver one, there was a limited stock in trade, unrelated to the readings at hand. Sacrosanctum concilium, the Vatican II Decree on the Sacred Liturgy, insisted on the necessity of the homily as an integral part of the Liturgy, and that the exposition on the Word should be linked to the lectionary. This was in its day revolutionary (so, too, was the instruction that Bishops should celebrate Mass in their cathedrals!), and, wonder of wonders, the Church took this to heart, the seminaries began teaching how to write and deliver a homily, and so the quality of homiletics improved radically--though, to be honest, there are still too many Latin priests who use the homily as an excuse to go off on a private rant on their own pet peeves.

On the Protestant side, it's been a while, so I can't comment, but a sermon is not a homily. A homily is, or ought to be a targum on the readings, and a sermon is somewhat more free-form. I understand that not every Protestant denomination actually has a lectionary, but the existence of one should be considerred a Good Thing, since it ensures that all that should be read is read, and links the teaching life of the Church to the seasons of the Church. Of course, not too many Protestant denominations pay that much attention to the festal cycle, other than Christmas and Easter. That may be why, as you say, pastors deliver the same sermons over and over again.

Stuart

Amen to Fr. Kimel's comment. I don't know the what the fifteen rules will be, but he has perfectly formulated the one rule, if only one were allowed: Say something; that is, ONE thing, not three, or five, or twenty. I often hear Dominicans preach, and they almost all do a good job (as they should, being the Order of Preachers and all), and the one thing that's true of all of them is that whether they preach for 2 minutes or for 15, the attentive listener can always go back afterward, ask "What was he saying?" and formulate the answer in a single sentence.

As a relatively recent convert (2 1/2 years), I can generally agree that the preaching in the Catholic Church is not nearly as poor as I was led to expect. I spent about 50 years prior to this listening to Protestant sermons and I generally found them poorer than what I hear in the Catholic Church. For one thing, they were much, much longer -- and the length was very often not used to convey more content but simply to repeat the point being made in six or seven different ways. What I appreciate about Catholic preaching is that in the homily, the priest makes his point and makes it once. I do not need endless repetition or rhetorical flourish to communicate to me. In fact, I simply find such both boring and distracting. So whatever the deficiencies in some homilies I have heard, I would back them against the rambling Protestant exercise any day!

The article is (unfortunately)true.
Most Sunday Masses leave us
on a spiritual starvation diet. As a daily Mass goer for many years, I have heard many sermons, very good once, power
full invigorating and "loveless" once.
It is my opinion that a "good sermon" is not so much the result
of much study,(also necessary) but of much prayer. The love for God will transform the words which are delivered. In my reflections, I came to understand that the Holy Spirit transports the message. ( not limited to the catholic Church)
To inflame the hearts for God, love of God will substitute for
eloquence. It is understood among faith filled Catholics
that those Priest who have a great devotion to Mary are able to touch the hearts of the listeners in a deeper way.

Gods holy Spirit can use a very dry sermon tought in simply words to transform a soul.

I have heard elaborate Sermons ( more than once) which were interesting, but soon forgotten. There need to be practical applications
in regards to the readings of the day.

There is one practical solution: If we the laypeople pray
and make sacrifices for our Priest, we will have one day besides many other things, GREAT Sermons.

I don't doubt the validity of this statement as it applies to the Church in the U.S., but my wife recalls to me the Latin-language Masses of her childhood in Mexico City (which may well have been Latin Mass under the 1970 missal, given the years of her childhood in the 1970s). There were homilies (and they were always in Spanish, the vernacular in question here), and if those homilies were anything like the Spanish homilies we are accustomed to today, then they were usually pretty long. I would tend to believe that the Masses celebrated according to the 1962 missal would also have included lengthy homilies; such a cultural marker doesn't just appear out of thin air.

I think Stuart makes a good point, however, in reminding us of what Sacrosanctum Concilium actually says. Read it here yourself: http://tinyurl.com/ay8y

Still, my own experience, whether the homily has been offered in English or in Spanish, is that they're not bad but might be better. Perhaps an obvious conclusion left dangling (and unsaid) is the most common lament I have. That essentially means that my experience is similar to that of Mr. Mills. thanks for the article.

Fr. Kimel, I'm afraid you're mistaken. There's a point to telling people that they must be "strive to be good people." Homilies are not only about proclaiming the Gospel and transforming the listeners; it's also about what follows from that. It's a synergy, not one or the other. That's Catholic theology. It's not the Gospel or works - it's both.

As a lifelong Catholic of almost 60 years, I have heard many, many sermons, homilies or whatever we want to call them. Some are very good, some are not, but the thing that the priest must realize though is that it is better to delivery a good 5 minute sermon, than a poor 15 minute sermon. Lincoln's Gettysburg address lasted only 3 minutes, but was the greatest American speech ever delivered. Most speakers cannot hold an audience for more than a few minutes, unless they are really good. In the Archdiocese of Baltimore, we had a priest, Father John Delclos, God rest his soul, who could preach like no other priest that I have ever heard. He could speak for half an hour, and it only seemed like a few minutes, you hung on every word he said. You would think about his sermon days later, he was inspirational.

Most speakers do not have this kind of power. This is not to say that they cannot be good, but they must do the following:
-Prepare, prepare, prepare.
-Keep it short.
-Inject some humor where you can [I think God has a sense of humor!].
-Try to inspire, like Father Delclos.

Of course, the congregation has an obligation too: they must listen and think.

David,

I often long for what you might call "the best of both worlds". Good preaching as I have heard it in Protestant churches, and the celebration of the Eucharist.


I've no experience of badly delivered homilies at a Catholic Mass - the only two I have attended have been celebrated by Abp Chaput.

Kamilla

I couldn't disagree more with this:

"Prior to [Vatican II], sermons were rare (there was little time or space for one in a Tridentine Mass, and when the priest did deliver one, there was a limited stock in trade, unrelated to the readings at hand."

Little time or space? I suppose if the goal is to condense everything down into the space of one hour so that impatient parishioners can rush home to watch football or something else, there would be little time indeed.

Maybe the way the Tridentine Mass is celebrated today has changed since pre-Vatican II days; since I wasn't around then, I wouldn't know. But I've yet to attend one that did not have a lengthy and relevant sermon, filled not only with references to the Epistle and the Gospel of the day, but also the saints, the Church fathers, and other sources.

Perhaps I'm fortunate to belong to a parish where our priest and deacon are both very well educated and erudite, but I've never been anything but fully satisfied with every sermon I have heard in the last year.

When I'm tempted to critique a homily, I try to imagine the more important things that probably (hopefully?) took up the priest's time in the week.
If you imagine that bad preaching might be an indicator of a busy priest, it's a little easier to sit through rough homilies.

I have heard some truly memorable and life-changing homilies. Some were decades ago, and I still remember them. I still regularly hear pretty terrific homilies.

When you do hear a good one, do you let your priest know how it affected you? I heard some things from a priest once that really made me think, and when I told him what I thought of his homily, he kept thanking me over and over. I highly suspect nobody tells him when he does well.

Another time I heard a good homily from a priest who is known for them. After Mass I saw a woman approach him. Her only words were to tell him that the building was too warm...not a word about a homily he had clearly spent some time preparing. (I was 8 months pregnant and comfortable, so it couldn't have been that bad.)

It might help priests to know the kind of thing that reaches their congregation.

I spent the weekend at the local Dominican House of Studies. One of the brothers mentioned the work they put into knowing how to give a good sermon ... and as a result they know just how bad bad sermons are.

Good preaching takes time, effort, staying with the Scriptures the week prior, and prayer. I always imagine that that it is not I who is preaching but the Holy Spirit reaching out through me to the minds and hearts of those listening.

One thing that would help both preachers and hearers of the Word, is if the hearers spent some time in prayer and contemplation on the Scriptures prior to the time of Mass - either during the week or coming to Mass a bit early to do so. A lot has to do with preparing the soil, if the seed has any chance of bearing fruit. How many people listen to the readings for the Mass, then the homily and are totally unprepared for what they are to hear. (And if the church's PA system is inadequate or the lector poorly proclaims the readings, the homily has no context for the listener.)

Thank you all for very helpful comments. I was especially struck by Renate's comment about prayer. When we were Episcopalians, we had a rector who was dyslexic, and couldn't study much, but he did pray through the parish list every day (only a couple hundred names, being a small Episcopal church). I could always tell from his sermon how much time he'd spent in prayer that week (I got to know him well enough to ask). When he had prayed a lot, he was not just more penetrating in what he drew from the day's lessons but more eloquent, and would say things that were genuinely striking and convicting. When he hadn't pray much, the sermon was a mess. The difference was obvious.

Though Clara is right about Catholic preaching, I know what Fr. Kimel means about moralistic sermons. There's no hint that we're being drawn into a supernatural life, in which we would experience the synergy Clara mentions. There's only some, usually quite shallow and banal, instruction to do good. Not even to be good, through the instruments the Church provides, but just to do good.

Reading the responses made me realize that when I said I'd never heard a genuinely bad sermon, I undoubtedly have heard a lot of sermons that others would think genuinely bad. For me, "bad" means bad in quality and bad in teaching. I can think of one preacher I've heard several times while away, whom I would have to fail were I teaching him homiletics, and yet he always says one of two very striking things that I wind up pondering for a while. He has never been a waste of time to listen to.

"Fr. Kimel, I'm afraid you're mistaken. There's a point to telling people that they must be "strive to be good people." Homilies are not only about proclaiming the Gospel and transforming the listeners; it's also about what follows from that. It's a synergy, not one or the other. That's Catholic theology. It's not the Gospel or works - it's both."

It is, of course, more than possible that I am mistaken. I am often mistaken on most matters. But on this particular subject, I do not think so. In my 28 years of pastoral ministry and experience, I have learned that Church-going, Mass-attending Christians do not need to be constantly informed that they "should" be good people; they do not need to be harangued to avoid sin and do good works. They already know all of that. They know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. They just choose, for any number of reasons, not to change, not to repent, not to pray, not to do the good.

The central task of the preacher is to so proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ that the the lives of his hearers are re-framed and transformed and thus empowered to do what they either could not do or did not want to do before. New life precedes good works. Exhortation does not raise people from spiritual death. Only the gospel of the risen Christ can do that.

Moral exhortation will always have a place in preaching. Given the appointed lessons of the day, it may appropriately dominate the homily. But woe to the Church if the summons to good works becomes the primary word spoken by the Church to the Church. The preacher only has 52 Sundays and a handful of holy days to proclaim the gospel. The limited time given to him is precious and sacred--hence the urgency to speak a Word that truly is Jesus Christ.

I think Fr Kimel is correct: excessive haranguing of the congregation tends to be counterproductive. There is a time and place for that, but it cannot be the rule, but rather the exception. Priests who appeal to our "better angels" are often much more effective than those who harangue us. Also, appeal to the intelligence of the congregation and humor can be very effective. I do believe that God has a sense of humor: after all, he made Tel-Evangelists like Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Baker, etc.

This does not mean that the priest must be a stand up comedian, however, a little humor can be quite effective to make a point. e.g. Nancy Pelosi regards her religion as a private matter; so private that she does not even impose it on herself....

Keep up the good work, Father. We need you.

If Fr Kimel's sermons are anything like his comments above, I would suggest taking him as a model.

Truly inspiring.

Joe H. wrote: "Maybe the way the Tridentine Mass is celebrated today has changed since pre-Vatican II days; since I wasn't around then, I wouldn't know. But I've yet to attend one that did not have a lengthy and relevant sermon, filled not only with references to the Epistle and the Gospel of the day, but also the saints, the Church fathers, and other sources."

I'm a Byzantine Catholic and don't have a dog in this fight, but I did attend more than a few preconciliar Masses with my Italian aunts, and I have more than a few Roman Catholic friends who also lived through that period. In the United States, at least, the typical celebration of the Eucharist was the silent low Mass, in which there was no music, the priest "said" the Mass and the people "heard" it. There was never a homily at the low Mass, and often the readings themselves were taken silently by the priest. Under those circumstances, Mass seldom lasted even half an hour, and in many (most?) places, a priest was judged, like a Civil War surgeon, on how quickly he could get the job done; fifteen minute Masses were not unknown. Full readings and homilies were reserved for the High Mass, which was celebrated just once a day on Sunday and studiously avoided by most people except on high holy days. Ask around.

There was a reason for Sacrsanctum concilium, and this was one of them--a minimialist approach to liturgy that focused on fulfilling an obligation rather than properly offering the sacrifice of praise to the Holy Trinity. If today the Tridentine Mass, whether low or high (do they still offer a choice?) is celebrated in fullness and reverence, with the readings and the homily given the importance they deserve, this is the fruit of the Decree on the Sacred Liturgy, as well as the experience of the Latin Church in the celebration of the Ordo Paulus VI--the much derided Novus Ordo. If there was much that was wrong with the implementation of the liturgical reforms, the basic principles enunciated in Sacrosanctum concilium were fundamentally correct, which in turn illuminates the shortcomings of the liturgical life of the Latin Church before Vatican II. The preconciliar Church was far from perfect, it just had a different set of problems than the Latin Church today. If the Tridentine Mass is restored and gains popularity, one reason will be the extent to which groups like the FSSP have inculcated the liturgical principles of Sacrosanctum concilium and applied them to the old Mass.

I will reiterate that the renaissance of homiletics is one of the success stories of the Second Council, before which it was generally a hit-or-miss proposition. The study of liturgics was largely the study of rubrics, with emphasis on getting all the actions and the gestures "right". Very little attention was paid to the deeper mystagogical meaning of liturgy, or of the proper and necessary place of the Liturgy of the Word in the celebration of the Eucharist.

Bishop Kallistos (Ware) of Deiocleia, one of the most effective and riveting homilists I have ever heard, one remarked that a good homily should have three points, no more and no less. I don't know if he was serious or not, but in our neck of the woods, doing things by threes in honor of the Trinity is always good form.

What’s the Matter with Catholic Preaching?

By David Jackson

Several years ago a friend of mine and I were discussing preaching in the Catholic church. She wondered aloud why there wasn't better preaching. My gut reaction was twofold: Priests and deacons are not used to praying over the scriptures and they don't study prior to preaching.

I found myself comparing Protestant preachers with Catholic priests. Protestants rely on the Bible, Catholics rely on the Bible and Tradition. Protestant worship is built around the Word, Catholics focus on the Mass and Eucharist. Protestant ministers have "studies," Catholic Priests have "offices."

A Presbyterian minister friend of mine once explained how their denomination selected a preacher. A committee would visit the church where a prospect was preaching. If they liked what they heard they would invite the preacher to their church to preach. Copies of written sermons would be evaluated. This is how they selected their "preacher." This contrasts with the Catholic practice of pastoral appointments by the bishop, with far less emphasis on whether someone has the skills to preach well.

Sad to say, in my experience few Catholic preachers seem to pray over the text. More often they just look at the text "to pick up something to preach on.” Homilies are lifeless, delivered without enthusiasm or personal investment. They lack what Pope Paul VI called for in his 1974 letter Evangelii Nuntiandi: "Modern man listens more willingly to witnesses than to teachers, and if he does listen to teachers, it is because they are witnesses" (EN #4l).

What does "witnessing" mean? To me it is letting our experiences pass through the Word and the Word pass through our experiences. This involves study, and for lack of good scripture classes in seminary, many preachers haven’t really experienced how study can enrich their personal understanding of the Word.
I remember a priest friend of mine saying to me, "I'm so tired of preaching." This puzzled me. Paul VI reflected on why people in the pews have difficulty listening to sermons "We are well aware that modern man is sated by talk; he is obviously often tired of listening and, what is worse, impervious to words. We are also aware that many psychologists and sociologists express the view that modern man has passed beyond the civilization of the word, which is now ineffective and useless, and that today he lives in the civilization of the image" (EN#42.l). But why would a priest grow tired of the challenge of preaching? Over the years I have written a sermon of one, two or three pages for almost every Sunday in the three-year Lectionary cycle. I have never exhausted either the subject or myself.

Sad to say, in my experience few Catholic preachers seem to pray over the text. More often they just look at the text "to pick up something to preach on.” Homilies are lifeless, delivered without enthusiasm or personal investment. They lack what Pope Paul VI called for in his 1974 letter Evangelii Nuntiandi: "Modern man listens more willingly to witnesses than to teachers, and if he does listen to teachers, it is because they are witnesses" (EN #4l).

What does "witnessing" mean? To me it is letting our experiences pass through the Word and the Word pass through our experiences. This involves study, and for lack of good scripture classes in seminary, many preachers haven’t really experienced how study can enrich their personal understanding of the Word.
I remember a priest friend of mine saying to me, "I'm so tired of preaching." This puzzled me. Paul VI reflected on why people in the pews have difficulty listening to sermons "We are well aware that modern man is sated by talk; he is obviously often tired of listening and, what is worse, impervious to words. We are also aware that many psychologists and sociologists express the view that modern man has passed beyond the civilization of the word, which is now ineffective and useless, and that today he lives in the civilization of the image" (EN#42.l). But why would a priest grow tired of the challenge of preaching? Over the years I have written a sermon of one, two or three pages for almost every Sunday in the three-year Lectionary cycle. I have never exhausted either the subject or myself.
My method for Sunday preaching is to read the Lectionary readings for the following Sunday a week in advance. Then I usually read several commentaries on the Gospel passages. I try to get one new commentary for each cycle. This year I am using John Pilch's Cultural World Of Mark . I also re-read several commentaries, like Werner Kelber's Mark's Story of Jesus, and I always consult the New Jerome Biblical Commentary. I recently discovered Ched Myer’s perceptive interpretation of Mark, Binding the Strong Man.
I check my files to see what I’ve said before. I either write a new sermon or I take something from a previous sermon and amplify it, but I rarely just deliver an old text (I do note sermons that have been well received and are worth repeating). This method has kept me alert and excited to preach. As is the case with many other Catholic preachers, I have also had to work my way through the sermon to be able to know the vocabulary and preach it in Spanish.
The Word is ever ancient, ever new, and always personal. In her book Revelatory Text, Sandra Schneiders offers this insight into one obstacle many priests face because so much of their education is “left brain,” heavy with courses in philosophy, logic, reason, use of manuals. What courses we had in music and art were intellectualized into music and art “appreciation.” We put on plays, but this was all extracurricular.
The scriptures are filled with metaphor and imagery, so preaching demands right brain, artistic ability, Schneiders says. "In metaphor the mind ‘feels’ toward meaning with a reach that exceeds the grasp of pure rationality. This is especially true of the language of poetry, parable, aphorism, proverb, hyperbole--in general, true of the kind of language attributed to Jesus in the gospels and used by the gospel writers to explore that root metaphor for the project of Jesus, the reign of God" (p. l39).
If you are more left brain-oriented it is difficult to do right brain work. A preacher avoids the dramatic in the Scriptures and instead talks about himself. Grappling with the Word is left to those who are more daring or more “prophetic.” Few would bring back the old fire and brimstone days, but how many of us are settling for sermons without any fire at all?




David Jackson is a retired priest of the Congregation of the Priests of the Sacred Heart. He has been a seminary teacher and a pastor in both rural and urban settings. He holds an M.Div. from Sacred Heart School of Theology and a Masters in Scripture from Catholic Theological Union. Contact him at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Systems of Incentives tend, as a general rule, to produce more of that which they incentivize.

This is true of Protestant preaching.

In the Protestant world, both the style and the skill of the preaching is considered when churches hire. A Protestant church does careful surveys of their community and their congregants to figure out the style of speaker they'll likely respond to best. Then they winnow out candidates who don't match that style. Then they'll winnow out the bad speakers, those who don't pack their sermons with Scripture references that are on-point and correctly (in their view) interpreted, those who preach aimlessly, et cetera.

The new pastor or "minister of XYZ" will be selected from the remaining candidates.

There is therefore significant competition; there is market pressure; however you wish to phrase it, there are pecuniary reasons for prospective pastors to hone their preaching skills. If they don't, their likelihood of becoming pastors is slim.

Over time, as this reality causes the average Preaching and Scripture-Cramming skills of Protestant pastors generally to go up, the minimum expectations of churches also rise.

And, of course, the skill one must display in order to stand out as a particularly good preacher also goes up. A few "ums" and momentary verbal stumbles might be the difference between being the pastor of a large and growing church, and being pastor of a tiny backwater that's gradually losing all its members to the other nearby churches (where the more skillful preachers work).

And, don't forget: When selecting a seminary, one tends to select from amongst those seminaries which "produced" the "best preachers you ever heard." There is therefore a financial incentive for seminaries to rigorously and effectively teach homiletics.

Few of these pressures and incentives exist in the Catholic world. Over time, therefore, it's no surprise that the results would differ between Protestant and Catholic preachers.

One other item: Sports teams from schools with large student bodies can usually trounce those from tiny private schools with only 50 students in each graduating class. Why? Simple: They have more students, thus more possibilities of talent. The tiny school may have one talented kid a year, and fill the rest of the roster with those willing to show up. The large school fills its roster with ten talented kids, and the remaining slots go to the less-talented kids who work really hard. The results, when the teams clash on the playing-field, are easy to foresee!

With that in mind, ask yourself: How many Catholic seminarians considering the priesthood are there, each year? How many Protestant seminarians? How does the larger size of the Protestant "crop" affect the ability of Protestant churches to find talent?

"If today the Tridentine Mass, whether low or high (do they still offer a choice?) is celebrated in fullness and reverence, with the readings and the homily given the importance they deserve, this is the fruit of the Decree on the Sacred Liturgy, as well as the experience of the Latin Church in the celebration of the Ordo Paulus VI--the much derided Novus Ordo."

At my FSSP parish, High Mass is the first and third Sunday of the month, and on certain feast days.

Our Low Mass on Sunday has a homily, but the daily Mass does not; and I don't see why it should. We don't need a homily every day. What is most important, at least to me, and at least what I thought it ought to be for the majority of Catholics, is the Eucharist.

I have nothing against a good homily. I enjoy being educated once a week on a topic I may not have otherwise studied. But I ask myself: why would Protestants seem to have the "better" sermons and the "better" preachers? What else does a Protestant minister actually do BUT preach?

Now what is the role of a Catholic priest? Where on his list of duties does giving a good sermon fall into? Frankly I don't care if he bores me to tears as long as his consecration of the host is valid. That is what I go to Mass for. And it isn't what Protestants go to their services for. We have a wealth of resources with which to enrich our intellectual and spiritual life if we don't get a good sermon one week, or one month, one whole year. But where else are we going to receive the body of Christ?

As for this:

"Full readings and homilies were reserved for the High Mass, which was celebrated just once a day on Sunday and studiously avoided by most people except on high holy days. Ask around."

No thanks. I should studiously like to avoid "most people" if they are avoiding Mass for frivolous reasons. I don't like to sound self-righteous since I am as terrible a sinner as anyone else. But since I have striven to make the Mass and the traditional liturgy the cornerstone of my life, I have less and less tolerance for the petty complaints of the bored.

Unfortunately, mediocrity has long-lasting consequences. Permanent deacons suffer something of a double jeopardy. It certainly happens that diaconal candidates may never have regularly heard good preaching. If their pastors have all been mediocre preachers, it's extremely difficult to train them to give better homilies than they have heard. And I've seen it happen that a newly-ordained deacon started out as a better preacher than his pastor, only to have declined to the same level of mediocrity 6 mo. later. I can't help but wonder if this is an issue for seminarians and pastoral associates, too.

I thank Joe for his charitable response. In the Byzantine Tradition we do not celebrate the Eucharist every day of the week (except in cathedrals and some monasteries); Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays are the usual days. I know a number of churches where the weekday liturgies are sparsely attended and the priests seldom give homilies at those liturgies except on feast days (we don't move feasts to the nearest Sunday, so a lot fall on weekdays). On the other hand, there are some priests who will not celebrate without delivering a homily, and both the Ordo Celebrationis and the Liturgical Instruction for Byzantine Catholics indicates that a homily is normative and is omitted only by "economy".

As Roman Catholics have daily Mass (and sometimes multiple daily Masses) I can see why the need to deliver a homily at every Mass would overtax an already burdened priest. But the rule still holds.

I do quibble with his statement, "What is most important, at least to me, and at least what I thought it ought to be for the majority of Catholics, is the Eucharist. " While the Eucharist is the sacrament of sacraments, the divine nourishment by which we are transfigured, and the means by which the Church demonstrates its communion within itself and with God, it is dangerous to reduce the Liturgy to (as I have heard some call it) "a Eucharist factory". There is more to Mass than the Eucharist, and in fact the entire liturgy is itself a single, unfolding epiclesis, so that one cannot say any one moment is "more" important than any other; the Liturgy is a single integrated whole, and to dissect it in that way undermines its very nature.

I would also point out that Catholic liturgy is more than just the Mass, but in Catholic piety, particularly among Latin Catholics, the Eucharist has become the be-all and end-all, with the result that proper liturgical celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours, particularly Vespers and Matins, is almost unknown. There is a parish close by my house that advertises a Novena every Wednesday evening, but never do I see a sign saying "Daily Vespers-7 PM". To reduce liturgy to the Eucharist is to reduce a feast just to the main course. One of the objectives of Sacrosanctum concilium therefore was the restoration of the Liturgy of the Hours as "liturgy", and not merely as a prayerbook for priests, religious, and particularly devout laymen. This aspect of the reform has been a miserable failure.

Joe H. also writes, "No thanks. I should studiously like to avoid "most people" if they are avoiding Mass for frivolous reasons. I don't like to sound self-righteous since I am as terrible a sinner as anyone else. But since I have striven to make the Mass and the traditional liturgy the cornerstone of my life, I have less and less tolerance for the petty complaints of the bored."

I think this is somewhat unfair to the people of that era, who were, after all, recipients of teachings and attitudes that had evolved in the Latin Church over a period of almost ten centuries. Needless to say, they responded to what they were told in a perfectly logical and human way, so if there is some blame to be passed around, it belongs to the entire Church, and not to people who were merely doing as their parents, their parents parents, and their parents parents parents had done since time immemorial.

Stuart,

You write,

"it is dangerous to reduce the Liturgy to (as I have heard some call it) "a Eucharist factory". There is more to Mass than the Eucharist, and in fact the entire liturgy is itself a single, unfolding epiclesis, so that one cannot say any one moment is "more" important than any other;"

I would think, however, that if the Eucharist is offered daily while the sermon only once a week, that it does indeed suggest an order of importance. Being second or third in that order does not mean a part is unimportant or insignificant, of course. The Canon of the Mass is practically half of the Mass, or very close to - I haven't timed it myself.

"I would also point out that Catholic liturgy is more than just the Mass, but in Catholic piety, particularly among Latin Catholics, the Eucharist has become the be-all and end-all, with the result that proper liturgical celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours, particularly Vespers and Matins, is almost unknown."

And that is unfortunate. My wife to be and I are constantly trying to deepen our knowledge of such things. But the proper Mass remains the foundation upon which all of the rest is built.

Finally, I am not really "blaming" anyone for anything, though I suppose there is plenty of blame to go around. All I said was that I have little patience for the complaining of the bored, whether they were around back then or they are new to it now and complaining about it. That anyone should complain about a 1000 year tradition strikes me as entirely absurd. Who is any one individual, of any one generation, to pass judgment on the practice of generations? Who are we to demand a user-friendly liturgy? Who are we to say, in response to Christ who gives us everything, "I cannot give one hour unless you make these changes"?

As a Catholic priest, I am quite frequently critiqued for this or that. Sometimes it is done with genuine respect and at times out of spite. So be it. I agree that many priests are not gifted preachers and that other priests are very talented. If you find that you are hearing bad preaching, first look at yourself and see if it is you or the priest. It is easy to blame the one preaching and not critique the one listening. I am not saying that the priest is always correct so please don't take this the wrong way. The one hearing is also influenced by his or her own agenda and that includes me. We must temper our critiques of others with critique of self. What do we expect, want, need, or demand. Is it correct? Is the priest just not giving me what I want to hear? Is the priest just not a good preacher?

Having been raised Baptist, let me say that this idea that Protestant preaching is so much better and that competition makes better preachers is not correct. I can attest to hearing 20 years of bad preaching from a large number of preachers. I do not see the value of comparing the preaching of Catholic priests with Protestant clergy preaching. The grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence and there is ample mediocre preaching in Protestant churches.

I agree that preaching is a necessary and critical skill and should have a great deal of attention and focus. Catholic seminaries ARE focusing on preaching preparation and skills today. Let's face it, there was a time when preaching in Catholic churches was not important but that has changed. It will take another generation, at least, before our parishes will have only priests that have the new training that seminaries are providing in regards to preaching.

Always remember that we all must pray for and support one another regardless of our personal opinions. Some priests may be gifted in many areas of their ministry but not preaching. If preaching is the only thing one wants to see as important then that is unfortunate. One can church shop to find the best preaching priest but remember, that priest will not be there forever.

Let us pray for one another and that God will bless us all with the gifts needed to draw the people of God closer to Him.

Peace and blessings,
Fr. Jeff

Fr. Jeff's message reminded me of this phrase from Ronald Knox’s preface to his The Gospel in Slow Motion: from the pulpit, the preacher sees “the same congregation settle down into its attitude of defensive repose.”

He is right about the attitude of the hearer, a point I should have seen and made. My standards may be low because I tend to give the priest a lot of slack. It is harder vocation that many laymen realize, partly because many layman seem to think the priest walks around with a target on his chest and back for use whenever someone feels like blowing off steam.

As someone said, we laymen ought to be much more careful to compliment and encourage our priests, not least when they preach well. Of even when they don't, but say something wise or convicting.

But that said, Catholic preaching could be better, and much of it much better. This is a judgment one can make. No one here has suggested that preaching is the one thing that is important, but it is crucial for the reason Fr. Kimel gave, and for others.

I am not at all sure that the seminaries are focussing on preaching, from what priests, including young priests, have told me, and that even if some are focussing on it that they know how to teach it. I wonder if seminaries would be wise to look to some of the convert clergy (and laymen) for help here.

I am a cradle Catholic and while I have heard some very bad Homilies I have also heard many good ones. One that left the biggest impression was also the simples one. The priest got up read the scripture not sure which one exactly but it was about Jesus, believing in him, and living a live like his. The priest then got up looked out over the congregation for a minutes and then asked all "Why are you really here" and then sat down a few seconds before going on with the Mass. I was about 15 at the time and now 54 years old I still remember that one.

Mr. Mills,

When I refer to seminaries, I am referring to the ones that I am most closely in touch with. I am sure that some seminaries are not focusing on preaching. I merely point out that it is very easy to take on an attitude of negativity because of what one hears. That should lead each of us to seek out the other side of the story.

I believe that perhaps some additional research would be of benefit for you. Instead of merely accepting a story or stories relayed to you, contact seminaries and find out. It is easier to make a judgment than to do research. I apply this same standard to my own comments here and I know that I am guilty at times of taking stories as "gospel" instead of finding out for myself.

I am often told by seminarians that this or that seminary is failing in this or that area. Yet another group of seminarians will then tell me how those same seminaries are actually succeeding in the very areas I was told they were failing. The burden is then upon me to find out for myself and not make up my mind because the stories either justify my thoughts or give me a false security in my opinion.

The real story is always more complex. That said, Catholic preaching can always be better as well as Protestant preaching. What one person loves, another hates and the struggle will always continue.

Peace,
Fr. Jeff

Well, you're lucky if you've never been utterly scandalized by Catholic preaching. In my experience, Catholic preaching (and I've heard it all over the Northeast) has been almost universally abysmal. That's one reason that I'd be embarrassed to take a non-Catholic friend to Mass, even if they wanted to come. The non-Catholic would conclude that our church is led by simpletons or homosexuals, and naturally reject the Catholic faith because of that.

I've heard lots of Protestant preaching, mostly on TV or the radio, but also in person, and although I don't agree with their theology, I have to admit that it is pretty much always infinitely better than anything I've ever heard from a Catholic priest. This is one of the major reasons people leave the Church. The priests don't seem able to form one coherent or inspiring thought in their sermons.

A friend wrote me, and gave permission to post, the following:

This is a fine piece, followed by some really intelligent comments.

I'm a traditional Anglican, having come to this place after a quarter-century as a Pentecostal preacher. I've preached a good many sermons and have heard a good many others. All my life I've made a point of visiting churches of every imaginable Christian tradition: RC, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, Pentecostal - you name it, and my observation of all these traditions can be described about the same way.

Preaching is not what it should be and can be, not in any tradition. Yes, I've heard some great sermons, though few and far between, and I've heard a lot of good sermons (I like to think many of mine fit in here), but most preaching is mediocre and a surprising amount of it is just plain bad. Sometimes the problem is stylitic, or just that it doesn't contin much of anything worth hearing, but I've been amazed how often a pulpit has been the source of misinformation or even heresy (this not by my standards, but by the standards of the fellowship being represented), and how often what is presented, no matter how orthodox or conservative the church, is actually no more than pop psychology. I love decent preaching, but I've so very often been badly disappointed.

Enough of the negative. Preaching as it should be is sacramental in its nature. I believe Vatican 2 was explicit in stating this. It is, or should be, the Word of God being brought by the Chgurch into the hearts of the hearers. It's not moralizing (though a moral message is often part of it), but rather a testimony to the power of God to change lives and save souls. The Spirit of God moves in proper preaching as surely as He does in the seven sacraments.

So how do we produce good sermons? (I'm not talking about great sermons; that is probably something for those especially gifted, but rather the kind of good preaching that does what God intends His Word to do) It's not by winging it, nor is it by preparing sermons as such, although both spontaneity and specific study remain important.

No, first and foremost it is about preparing, not the sermon, but the preacher. Before he ever sees the text he will be using, he needs to be drawing near to God in prayer, lots of prayer, prayer for his own soul, prayer that he be able truly to hear God, prayer for the people to whom he will preach, and, after that, when he has begun to consider the text itself, prayer that God speaj through it.

Besides being a praying person, he needs also to be a studying person, not merely gathering material for the sermon at hand, but steeping himself in the teaching of Scripture and of the Church. The man who prepares a sermon is all too capable of filling it with his own bright ideas, which may indeed be wrong. The man who prepares the preacher is far more likely to fill his preaching with the truth with which he is filled. May Christians of all stripe prepare themselves to declare God's Word to a rebelling world.

Father,

Thank you for the follow-up. I take the point, and nothing you say is untrue, but the rebuke isn't deserved.

The priests to whom I referred are all men whose judicious evaluation of things I have reason to trust. They described their own experiences and observations in some detail. I was careful not to present their reporting as "gospel" though I have no reason to doubt them, and will, as editors like to say, stand by the story.

In addition, and I was not going to bring this up, not so long ago I heard a priest who teaches homiletics at a seminary preach, and if he can teach homiletics then I can teach LeBron James to play basketball.

In the past few weeks, I have had the sad duty to attend several funerals, one of which for a close friend and mentor. Until several years ago, I had not darkened the door of a church except for weddings and funerals. I have consequently had the opportunity to hear preaching from both Protestant and Catholic clergy on both happy and sad occasions. My own experience is that the Catholic priests tend to be better preachers, generally with fewer frills and flourishes than the Protestant ministers. My close friend, who is an Episcopalian priest tends to be a superb preacher, with a close affinity to the style of the Catholic priests I have heard. The minister officiating at the funeral of my friend, was articulate, and even slick. He noted, however, that he barely knew my friend, which is surprising even in a large upscale mega-church, as my friend played a large role there, and was very well known and respected. The better speaking at that funeral was actually done by another minister who read some of the poems of my friend, and also by his family members. I also got a bit of a chuckle over the lavish appointments of the church and sanctuary, in contrast to the university Catholic parish I regularly attend. In contrast, the preaching at my parish ranges from the very scholarly approach of a priest who is fluent enough in Greek to correct the translation in the Readings, to a recently ordained priest originally from Mexico. Another priest is from Nigeria. Each has a different style, and all are superb preachers, bringing in their own experiences to illuminate the Readings for that particular Mass. And, what is in contrast to the suburban mega-church is that despite being a large parish with considerable turnover, the priests know most of their members on a first name basis. I think that different sinners require a variety of preaching approaches to prompt repentance. I, myself, am very happy that I was summoned to my parish by that small still voice, where I was welcomed and converted. I cannot speak for other Catholic parishes, but the preaching where I have attended has generally been excellent.

I don't expect to be entertained, enlightened or inspired, but I would like Jesus to be mentioned at least once. (I don't think "scandalised" even comes close!)

David, you nailed it.

Many Protestant sermons are eloquent nothings. Though some are amazingly biblical and applicable.

The same can be said for Catholic sermons. All in all, the best sermons that I have heard were from Catholic priests. However, it's my opinion that our priests are generally less biblical in content.

As a layman, I would like to hear more Bible in the homily.

I am not familiar with the Rev Swizzlestick yet I do happen to know an actual Fr. O´Shea -- a Franciscan in Boston is an excellent preacher at every Mass he celebrates.

A priest not to miss if one enjoys a fine homily.

Fr. George Rutler of Our Saviour in NYC preaches eloquently and substantively well daily and several times each day at that. His homily is what I miss most when I am travelling outside of the USA. And the Lenten season is here so not to mention his Good Friday sermon would be an error on my part.

As a boy I was not so interested in the homily because I myself was even less interesting then from now if that is at all possible.I bring myself to the homily as well. Not unlike reading a good book. It often presumes knowledge and understanding and sometimes not.

And then again the center of the Mass is the Eucharist and not the personality or politics of the priest.

I relish a good homily but celebration of the Mass is the celebration of the Eucharist and not solely or even primarily
the oratory skills of the priest.

A good homily without the Eucharist is a good speech.

A less than interesting homily does not invalidate the mystery
of the Eucharist.